I am not concerned about Presidential character. It's overrated. Presidents are largely morally inferior people to the average person. They are better politicians and usually better leaders, which are more important attributes. Trump's biggest problem isn't his questionable moral character, it's that he cannot intellectually understand an issue and that he has limited self-control. He can only intuitively "get" an issue, which is tough to do at the Presidential level because every issue is so nuanced.

So your opinion is, who cares what he is like as a person as long as he gets the job done...and you feel he's not doing so well in that department either.

While I can agree with the sentiment here I would point out that the president is more than a politician, he is a figurehead whether you like it or not. His character influences the way other countries view the US and also how citizens, especially young ones, view what is and isn't ok. If we hold our football players to a higher standard than the average citizen because they are "role models" shouldn't we hold our president to at least that standard?

And going a step further, I think some of the issues that people are so angry about go beyond his character. For example, he has a well documented history of not paying contractors who do work for him and if they try to fight back he bullies them using his legal resources until they settle out of court or give up. Even though it may be technically legal, it is stealing. I think we as citizens are well within reason to be angry at someone who steals from the very people he claims to be fighting for.

I am not concerned about Presidential character. It's overrated. Presidents are largely morally inferior people to the average person. They are better politicians and usually better leaders, which are more important attributes. Trump's biggest problem isn't his questionable moral character, it's that he cannot intellectually understand an issue and that he has limited self-control. He can only intuitively "get" an issue, which is tough to do at the Presidential level because every issue is so nuanced.

So your opinion is, who cares what he is like as a person as long as he gets the job done...and you feel he's not doing so well in that department either.

While I can agree with the sentiment here I would point out that the president is more than a politician, he is a figurehead whether you like it or not. His character influences the way other countries view the US and also how citizens, especially young ones, view what is and isn't ok. If we hold our football players to a higher standard than the average citizen because they are "role models" shouldn't we hold our president to at least that standard?

And going a step further, I think some of the issues that people are so angry about go beyond his character. For example, he has a well documented history of not paying contractors who do work for him and if they try to fight back he bullies them using his legal resources until they settle out of court or give up. Even though it may be technically legal, it is stealing. I think we as citizens are well within reason to be angry at someone who steals from the very people he claims to be fighting for.

If it's technically legal, it's not stealing. Theft is a legally defined crime.

Don't see why it will make a deciding impact on whether he should be in the White House, either. It only matters to the extent it informs his overall negotiation mindset, and what deals are made in the political/FP arena. It's a business practice, even if it's a business practice I don't like.

EDIT: Like, if I want to kill TPP, reduce immigration, and put an anti-abortion advocate on the SC, why would I vote for Hillary just because Trump stiffed contractors? Contractors don't have enough weight to sway that kind of decision.

I am not concerned about Presidential character. It's overrated. Presidents are largely morally inferior people to the average person. They are better politicians and usually better leaders, which are more important attributes. Trump's biggest problem isn't his questionable moral character, it's that he cannot intellectually understand an issue and that he has limited self-control. He can only intuitively "get" an issue, which is tough to do at the Presidential level because every issue is so nuanced.

So your opinion is, who cares what he is like as a person as long as he gets the job done...and you feel he's not doing so well in that department either.

While I can agree with the sentiment here I would point out that the president is more than a politician, he is a figurehead whether you like it or not. His character influences the way other countries view the US and also how citizens, especially young ones, view what is and isn't ok. If we hold our football players to a higher standard than the average citizen because they are "role models" shouldn't we hold our president to at least that standard?

And going a step further, I think some of the issues that people are so angry about go beyond his character. For example, he has a well documented history of not paying contractors who do work for him and if they try to fight back he bullies them using his legal resources until they settle out of court or give up. Even though it may be technically legal, it is stealing. I think we as citizens are well within reason to be angry at someone who steals from the very people he claims to be fighting for.

If it's technically legal, it's not stealing. Theft is a legally defined crime.

Don't see why it will make a deciding impact on whether he should be in the White House, either. It only matters to the extent it informs his overall negotiation mindset, and what deals are made in the political/FP arena. It's a business practice, even if it's a business practice I don't like.

EDIT: Like, if I want to kill TPP, reduce immigration, and put an anti-abortion advocate on the SC, why would I vote for Hillary just because Trump stiffed contractors? Contractors don't have enough weight to sway that kind of decision.

Merriam Webster definition of steal: -to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice

Corrupt leaders steal from their citizens within the law quite often. I believe the evidence points to Trump being corrupt, and I am confident he would be doing much more harm right now if not for our system of checks and balances. I think these things matter because his negotiation mindset leans heavily on bullying and tricking people. That may have worked for him in real estate/marketing but now he's dealing with other countries on a world stage, not small business owners.

I never suggested that this one thing alone would override the other factors you mentioned and I only gave this as a single example. Also this discussion isn't about why we should have voted for Hillary, it's about the current situation.

Another example I would cite as to why I worry about his leadership would be the central park 5. He publicly called for the execution of a now proven innocent 15 year old child and even paid for an advertisement towards that end. Despite forensic evidence clearing the kid, he has not apologized and has even suggested that the forensic evidence is wrong, this shows:-He is unwilling to admit fault or compromise which is an important trait for leaders and negotiators-He thinks he is above the law-He places emotion before reason and critical thinking-He calls for extreme actions based on false claims-And let's just call it like it is, if those kids were white he never would have gotten involved

Another thought regarding how other nations view us; I work with people in Canada, blue collar conservative types in manufacturing, and I make it a point to not talk politics during business meetings but almost every time I meet with someone they ask something along the lines of "What's going on down there? Who voted for Trump? Are people really that stupid?"

This is anecdotal but there's plenty of reason to think the world is laughing at us.

And speaking of stealing and since this is a 'speculation' thread, I have been wondering why Trump (apparently against his own interests) suddenly decided now to tell Congress he is ending DACA. Momentum was finally building for his signature tax reform and there was even chance to get infrastructure spending going, but instead this move seems to derail Congress yet again. It's almost as though Trump wants the economy to implode. Picking fights with North Korea, threatening to make ACA implode, being the only first world country that pulls out of the Paris Accord, picking fights over international trade... So I speculate that Trump does want the economy to implode. Either way, he can take credit for the record stock markets and unemployment (although he has no way to prove that his administration moved the needle compared to the trends already established before it took over) and if it implodes he can blame the Fed and a whole list of others for their failures. But in this second case, he has much more political power to force others to 'help the American people' by doing his bidding. It also makes for better opportunities for businesses (especially Real Estate) and makes the American public more dependent on Trump to 'speak for them'. It's all just speculation, but anyone around Trump will candidly say that ultimately he only follows his own agenda. So now I'm trying to figure out what his agenda is, certainly not a quest for popularity - ending DACA abruptly would be incredibly unpopular.

And speaking of stealing and since this is a 'speculation' thread, I have been wondering why Trump (apparently against his own interests) suddenly decided now to tell Congress he is ending DACA. Momentum was finally building for his signature tax reform and there was even chance to get infrastructure spending going, but instead this move seems to derail Congress yet again. It's almost as though Trump wants the economy to implode. Picking fights with North Korea, threatening to make ACA implode, being the only first world country that pulls out of the Paris Accord, picking fights over international trade... So I speculate that Trump does want the economy to implode. Either way, he can take credit for the record stock markets and unemployment (although he has no way to prove that his administration moved the needle compared to the trends already established before it took over) and if it implodes he can blame the Fed and a whole list of others for their failures. But in this second case, he has much more political power to force others to 'help the American people' by doing his bidding. It also makes for better opportunities for businesses (especially Real Estate) and makes the American public more dependent on Trump to 'speak for them'. It's all just speculation, but anyone around Trump will candidly say that ultimately he only follows his own agenda. So now I'm trying to figure out what his agenda is, certainly not a quest for popularity - ending DACA abruptly would be incredibly unpopular.

Your summary of the Central Park case looks like a social media summary and not a legal summary to me. The accused were convicted by a jury of their peers and their convictions of upheld. The NYPD commission concluded that all the criminals were likely there and the chance of their actually being innocent almost impossible.

I wasn't coherent enough in the late 80s to judge anything about Trump's responses, but defendants should obviously get fair trials. Given that our current politicians ran their mouths so badly that Martin Shkreli's case had to run through well over 100 potential jurors, the same standard DQ'ing Trump DQs practically all current politicians. Maybe Rand Paul can stay? Obviously I'd prefer all politicians to shut their mouths about these kinds of cases, or everyone to shut their mouths about these cases, and just let the courts handle it. Not only to secure the rights of the defended, but so we don't get everyone pissed off when a jury returns a verdict not in line with public opinion.

I don't concern myself with the opinions of other nations. They have all picked far worse leaders. Jacques Chirac was incredibly corrupt. Macron is an empty suit. Schroder is more Russia friendly than Trump, to the point of white-washing their invasion of Ukraine. Merkel almost torched the entire European project over her refugee stance. Berlusconi doesn't need any detail, except that he's better than the comedian that is now a major political figure in Italy.

Several of these nations, like Greece, South Korea, and Spain, were military dictatorships until the 1970s or 1980s. I am not going to take lessons in democracy from nation's with a democracy younger than my father.

Still don't see any of these as strong in comparison to concrete policy issues. If you want single-payer, are you not going to vote for Bernie because Israel doesn't like him or because he stiffed his gardener?

Quote

I have been wondering why Trump (apparently against his own interests) suddenly decided now to tell Congress he is ending DACA. Momentum was finally building for his signature tax reform and there was even chance to get infrastructure spending going, but instead this move seems to derail Congress yet again. It's almost as though Trump wants the economy to implode. Picking fights with North Korea, threatening to make ACA implode, being the only first world country that pulls out of the Paris Accord, picking fights over international trade... So I speculate that Trump does want the economy to implode

Because he wants to use DACA as leverage to get funding for his wall. None of the items you mentioned will actually hurt asset prices in the near term. That's leaving aside that picking fights on international trade is what Presidents do, and HRC wanted to appoint a special Czar specifically FOR that issue. And he's not picking fights with North Korea. North Korea is picking fights with us and our allies.

Your summary of the Central Park case looks like a social media summary and not a legal summary to me. The accused were convicted by a jury of their peers and their convictions of upheld. The NYPD commission concluded that all the criminals were likely there and the chance of their actually being innocent almost impossible.

I wasn't coherent enough in the late 80s to judge anything about Trump's responses, but defendants should obviously get fair trials. Given that our current politicians ran their mouths so badly that Martin Shkreli's case had to run through well over 100 potential jurors, the same standard DQ'ing Trump DQs practically all current politicians. Maybe Rand Paul can stay? Obviously I'd prefer all politicians to shut their mouths about these kinds of cases, or everyone to shut their mouths about these cases, and just let the courts handle it. Not only to secure the rights of the defended, but so we don't get everyone pissed off when a jury returns a verdict not in line with public opinion.

He spent $85,000 in ads promoting the idea that rapists should receive the death penalty.

Quote

Incredibly, 14 years after their sentences were vacated based on DNA evidence and the detailed and accurate confession of a serial rapist named Matias Reyes, Mr. Trump has doubled down.

“They admitted they were guilty,” he said in a statement to CNN this month. “The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous.”

Here, he cannot admit he was wrong. DNA evidence - science has advanced since 1989 - cleared the Central Park 5. A serial rapist confessed. Yet, he's hung up on the confessions of teenagers - because, you know, false confessions never happen and witnesses are never coerced, right?

Your summary of the Central Park case looks like a social media summary and not a legal summary to me. The accused were convicted by a jury of their peers and their convictions of upheld. The NYPD commission concluded that all the criminals were likely there and the chance of their actually being innocent almost impossible.

I wasn't coherent enough in the late 80s to judge anything about Trump's responses, but defendants should obviously get fair trials. Given that our current politicians ran their mouths so badly that Martin Shkreli's case had to run through well over 100 potential jurors, the same standard DQ'ing Trump DQs practically all current politicians. Maybe Rand Paul can stay? Obviously I'd prefer all politicians to shut their mouths about these kinds of cases, or everyone to shut their mouths about these cases, and just let the courts handle it. Not only to secure the rights of the defended, but so we don't get everyone pissed off when a jury returns a verdict not in line with public opinion.

Ya, I shouldn't have said "proven innocent" but rather exonerated by DNA evidence and was likely coerced to confess by intimidation. I suspect they were all guilty of something. Regardless, you agree that he had no place being involved in the case and fed the mob mentality, I think that's just as bad even if they had been found guilty because he didn't know anything more than anyone else about the case.

Quote

I don't concern myself with the opinions of other nations. They have all picked far worse leaders. Jacques Chirac was incredibly corrupt. Macron is an empty suit. Schroder is more Russia friendly than Trump, to the point of white-washing their invasion of Ukraine. Merkel almost torched the entire European project over her refugee stance. Berlusconi doesn't need any detail, except that he's better than the comedian that is now a major political figure in Italy.

Several of these nations, like Greece, South Korea, and Spain, were military dictatorships until the 1970s or 1980s. I am not going to take lessons in democracy from nation's with a democracy younger than my father.

First, that's a pretty bold statement. But more importantly, it's irrelevant. "They did worse" doesn't mean their opinion doesn't matter. Good relations with other nations matter. Are you arguing this point?

Quote

Still don't see any of these as strong in comparison to concrete policy issues. If you want single-payer, are you not going to vote for Bernie because Israel doesn't like him or because he stiffed his gardener?

Sort of, but not for those reasons. I'm strongly in favor of single payer or a path in that direction but I was not a fan of Bernie on the whole due to inexperience in foreign affairs. Also your examples of "Israel doesn't like him or because he stiffed his gardener" severely downplays the things that Trump has done in the past.

But once again, that's not the point. This is not a discussion about justifying voting for Trump. It is a discussion about whether or not his character/morals are relevant in judging his fitness for office.

Edit: Your original statement was that you are not concerned about presidential character. You also suggested that being a politician and a leader are more important attributes than having good character. So do you think that character really doesn't matter at all or just that it is less important than the other characteristics.

He obviously listens to his advisors and tries to instinctively path a middle ground, but he doesn't understand political optics very well.

No, he doesn't. Many wanted him to stay in the Paris Accord (off the record or as "anonymous" sources, of course).

His entire agenda for seven months has been "Did Obama pass it/support it?" If yes, repeal/end.

That's it.

The USA was never in the Paris Accord. Obama never sought out for congress to ratify it. I mentioned this earlier in the thread: it is frustrating that Americans simultaneously think (1) bombing a country or arming rebels isn't an act of war and (2) that the USA is a part of things that she never ratifies.

The USA was never in the Paris Accord. Obama never sought out for congress to ratify it. I mentioned this earlier in the thread: it is frustrating that Americans simultaneously think (1) bombing a country or arming rebels isn't an act of war and (2) that the USA is a part of things that she never ratifies.

Quote

Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, no country was supposed to be able to give notice of its departure until November 4, 2019, which is three years to the day after the treaty entered force. And no one was supposed to be able to leave the agreement until November 4, 2020—which is, by the way, exactly one day after the next U.S. presidential election.

So...yeah...despite the efforts of this administration we're part of this agreement until 2020.

As to point 1) yes, you could say Congress hasn't "formally declared war" in over a decade, but both Bush and Obama (now joined by Trump) found ways around that to "authorize military force." Even if it isn't the formal declaration of war, any bombing, gun fighting, etc. etc. is still warfare. I fully acknowledge that as an American - and I am hopeful we will start withdrawing from the Middle East but it doesn't seem like that will be the case in the next few years.

Your summary of the Central Park case looks like a social media summary and not a legal summary to me. The accused were convicted by a jury of their peers and their convictions of upheld. The NYPD commission concluded that all the criminals were likely there and the chance of their actually being innocent almost impossible.

I wasn't coherent enough in the late 80s to judge anything about Trump's responses, but defendants should obviously get fair trials. Given that our current politicians ran their mouths so badly that Martin Shkreli's case had to run through well over 100 potential jurors, the same standard DQ'ing Trump DQs practically all current politicians. Maybe Rand Paul can stay? Obviously I'd prefer all politicians to shut their mouths about these kinds of cases, or everyone to shut their mouths about these cases, and just let the courts handle it. Not only to secure the rights of the defended, but so we don't get everyone pissed off when a jury returns a verdict not in line with public opinion.

Ya, I shouldn't have said "proven innocent" but rather exonerated by DNA evidence and was likely coerced to confess by intimidation. I suspect they were all guilty of something. Regardless, you agree that he had no place being involved in the case and fed the mob mentality, I think that's just as bad even if they had been found guilty because he didn't know anything more than anyone else about the case.

Quote

I don't concern myself with the opinions of other nations. They have all picked far worse leaders. Jacques Chirac was incredibly corrupt. Macron is an empty suit. Schroder is more Russia friendly than Trump, to the point of white-washing their invasion of Ukraine. Merkel almost torched the entire European project over her refugee stance. Berlusconi doesn't need any detail, except that he's better than the comedian that is now a major political figure in Italy.

Several of these nations, like Greece, South Korea, and Spain, were military dictatorships until the 1970s or 1980s. I am not going to take lessons in democracy from nation's with a democracy younger than my father.

First, that's a pretty bold statement. But more importantly, it's irrelevant. "They did worse" doesn't mean their opinion doesn't matter. Good relations with other nations matter. Are you arguing this point?

Quote

Still don't see any of these as strong in comparison to concrete policy issues. If you want single-payer, are you not going to vote for Bernie because Israel doesn't like him or because he stiffed his gardener?

Sort of, but not for those reasons. I'm strongly in favor of single payer or a path in that direction but I was not a fan of Bernie on the whole due to inexperience in foreign affairs. Also your examples of "Israel doesn't like him or because he stiffed his gardener" severely downplays the things that Trump has done in the past.

But once again, that's not the point. This is not a discussion about justifying voting for Trump. It is a discussion about whether or not his character/morals are relevant in judging his fitness for office.

Edit: Your original statement was that you are not concerned about presidential character. You also suggested that being a politician and a leader are more important attributes than having good character. So do you think that character really doesn't matter at all or just that it is less important than the other characteristics.

On the primary point: I think the bar for moral character for the President is pretty low, and lower than people insist it must be. It's like a minimum requirement of 48" for a roller coaster: you're excluding some people, but everyone else can ride the coaster and it's not going to substantially affect the outcome.

The differences in policy outcomes between candidates depend more on their parties and other traits than their personal character, IMHO. Trump's not an exception, with the notable caveat that his brashness might get us involved in a war unnecessarily. BUT, I've never found that particularly convincing, and that's a separate issue from his infidelity, probable sexual assault, and business defaults.

This all is even less important in the US, which has a system of checks and balances, than more unitary systems. I can't judge what would work better in Britain, for instance.

So, doesn't matter at all? No, that's pretty far. Just far less important than other major policy issues.

Your summary of the Central Park case looks like a social media summary and not a legal summary to me. The accused were convicted by a jury of their peers and their convictions of upheld. The NYPD commission concluded that all the criminals were likely there and the chance of their actually being innocent almost impossible.

I wasn't coherent enough in the late 80s to judge anything about Trump's responses, but defendants should obviously get fair trials. Given that our current politicians ran their mouths so badly that Martin Shkreli's case had to run through well over 100 potential jurors, the same standard DQ'ing Trump DQs practically all current politicians. Maybe Rand Paul can stay? Obviously I'd prefer all politicians to shut their mouths about these kinds of cases, or everyone to shut their mouths about these cases, and just let the courts handle it. Not only to secure the rights of the defended, but so we don't get everyone pissed off when a jury returns a verdict not in line with public opinion.

Ya, I shouldn't have said "proven innocent" but rather exonerated by DNA evidence and was likely coerced to confess by intimidation. I suspect they were all guilty of something. Regardless, you agree that he had no place being involved in the case and fed the mob mentality, I think that's just as bad even if they had been found guilty because he didn't know anything more than anyone else about the case.

Quote

I don't concern myself with the opinions of other nations. They have all picked far worse leaders. Jacques Chirac was incredibly corrupt. Macron is an empty suit. Schroder is more Russia friendly than Trump, to the point of white-washing their invasion of Ukraine. Merkel almost torched the entire European project over her refugee stance. Berlusconi doesn't need any detail, except that he's better than the comedian that is now a major political figure in Italy.

Several of these nations, like Greece, South Korea, and Spain, were military dictatorships until the 1970s or 1980s. I am not going to take lessons in democracy from nation's with a democracy younger than my father.

First, that's a pretty bold statement. But more importantly, it's irrelevant. "They did worse" doesn't mean their opinion doesn't matter. Good relations with other nations matter. Are you arguing this point?

Quote

Still don't see any of these as strong in comparison to concrete policy issues. If you want single-payer, are you not going to vote for Bernie because Israel doesn't like him or because he stiffed his gardener?

Sort of, but not for those reasons. I'm strongly in favor of single payer or a path in that direction but I was not a fan of Bernie on the whole due to inexperience in foreign affairs. Also your examples of "Israel doesn't like him or because he stiffed his gardener" severely downplays the things that Trump has done in the past.

But once again, that's not the point. This is not a discussion about justifying voting for Trump. It is a discussion about whether or not his character/morals are relevant in judging his fitness for office.

Edit: Your original statement was that you are not concerned about presidential character. You also suggested that being a politician and a leader are more important attributes than having good character. So do you think that character really doesn't matter at all or just that it is less important than the other characteristics.

On the primary point: I think the bar for moral character for the President is pretty low, and lower than people insist it must be. It's like a minimum requirement of 48" for a roller coaster: you're excluding some people, but everyone else can ride the coaster and it's not going to substantially affect the outcome.

The differences in policy outcomes between candidates depend more on their parties and other traits than their personal character, IMHO. Trump's not an exception, with the notable caveat that his brashness might get us involved in a war unnecessarily. BUT, I've never found that particularly convincing, and that's a separate issue from his infidelity, probable sexual assault, and business defaults.

This all is even less important in the US, which has a system of checks and balances, than more unitary systems. I can't judge what would work better in Britain, for instance.

So, doesn't matter at all? No, that's pretty far. Just far less important than other major policy issues.

I disagree. The president of the United States is the highest office that a public servant can hold. That person essentially, serves us the American people. On the other hand the office holds a great deal of influence and power and many temptations. You need someone of high moral character, to serve the United States over their own personal interests. I don't think Trump is capable of doing so.

The USA was never in the Paris Accord. Obama never sought out for congress to ratify it. I mentioned this earlier in the thread: it is frustrating that Americans simultaneously think (1) bombing a country or arming rebels isn't an act of war and (2) that the USA is a part of things that she never ratifies.

Quote

Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, no country was supposed to be able to give notice of its departure until November 4, 2019, which is three years to the day after the treaty entered force. And no one was supposed to be able to leave the agreement until November 4, 2020—which is, by the way, exactly one day after the next U.S. presidential election.

So...yeah...despite the efforts of this administration we're part of this agreement until 2020.

The USA never ratified the Paris Accord. The USA isn't a part of things she doesn't join. If you compare her to other countries:

It frustrates me to no end that, for some reason, people seem to think the USA is a part of things it doesn't join. It's like the kid who wasn't invited to a party showing up or the guy who didn't make the basketball team in high school reflecting on his varsity career.

The USA was never in the Paris Accord. Obama never sought out for congress to ratify it. I mentioned this earlier in the thread: it is frustrating that Americans simultaneously think (1) bombing a country or arming rebels isn't an act of war and (2) that the USA is a part of things that she never ratifies.

Quote

Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, no country was supposed to be able to give notice of its departure until November 4, 2019, which is three years to the day after the treaty entered force. And no one was supposed to be able to leave the agreement until November 4, 2020—which is, by the way, exactly one day after the next U.S. presidential election.

So...yeah...despite the efforts of this administration we're part of this agreement until 2020.

The USA never ratified the Paris Accord. The USA isn't a part of things she doesn't join. If you compare her to other countries:

It frustrates me to no end that, for some reason, people seem to think the USA is a part of things it doesn't join. It's like the kid who wasn't invited to a party showing up or the guy who didn't make the basketball team in high school reflecting on his varsity career.

Lol. It's not exactly like a kid who wasn't invited to a party showing up. It's more like a kid being invited to a party, eating all the food, and then saying they weren't there so they don't have to help pick up afterwards.

...It frustrates me to no end that, for some reason, people seem to think the USA is a part of things it doesn't join. It's like the kid who wasn't invited to a party showing up or the guy who didn't make the basketball team in high school reflecting on his varsity career.

I get what you're saying, but the 'frustrates me to know end' is a little hyperbolic and not helpful. Had Hillary (and the popular vote) won the last election, the US would be 'in' the Paris Accord now and for the 'long haul'. In general, the vast majority of the American public did believe in the science linking human activity (aka the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the Holocene) and climate change. Sadly, Americans seem to be giving in to their lizard brains embracing the idea that maybe it is just a short term problem. And surely the President can't be entirely wrong, and it sure is nice not having to hear about it anymore... ugh...

...It frustrates me to no end that, for some reason, people seem to think the USA is a part of things it doesn't join. It's like the kid who wasn't invited to a party showing up or the guy who didn't make the basketball team in high school reflecting on his varsity career.

I get what you're saying, but the 'frustrates me to know end' is a little hyperbolic and not helpful. Had Hillary (and the popular vote) won the last election, the US would be 'in' the Paris Accord now and for the 'long haul'. In general, the vast majority of the American public did believe in the science linking human activity (aka the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the Holocene) and climate change. Sadly, Americans seem to be giving in to their lizard brains embracing the idea that maybe it is just a short term problem. And surely the President can't be entirely wrong, and it sure is nice not having to hear about it anymore... ugh...

Hillary would have sent the Paris Accord to congress and it would have been ratified......then they'd be in it.

Hillary would have sent the Paris Accord to congress and it would have been ratified......then they'd be in it.

The Paris Accord mess is one that really get to me. Plenty of third world countries participate in this. Syria and Nicaragua is the other countries who is not participating. Does US want to have the same standard as these two (no offense to anyone from these two countries)? Urgh...

Hillary would have sent the Paris Accord to congress and it would have been ratified......then they'd be in it.

The Paris Accord mess is one that really get to me. Plenty of third world countries participate in this. Syria and Nicaragua is the other countries who is not participating. Does US want to have the same standard as these two (no offense to anyone from these two countries)? Urgh...

Even North Korea with their crazy leader signed it...

Nicaragua didn't sign only because they don't think it went far enough to curb fossil fuel usage:

Hillary would have sent the Paris Accord to congress and it would have been ratified......then they'd be in it.

The Paris Accord mess is one that really get to me. Plenty of third world countries participate in this. Syria and Nicaragua is the other countries who is not participating. Does US want to have the same standard as these two (no offense to anyone from these two countries)? Urgh...

Even North Korea with their crazy leader signed it...

Nicaragua didn't sign only because they don't think it went far enough to curb fossil fuel usage:

Hillary would have sent the Paris Accord to congress and it would have been ratified......then they'd be in it.

The Paris Accord mess is one that really get to me. Plenty of third world countries participate in this. Syria and Nicaragua is the other countries who is not participating. Does US want to have the same standard as these two (no offense to anyone from these two countries)? Urgh...

Even North Korea with their crazy leader signed it...

Ahh yes, but we have a President who thinks climate change was invented by the Chinese. So to be fair, a lot of third world countries have smarter leaders.

Hillary would have sent the Paris Accord to congress and it would have been ratified......then they'd be in it.

The Paris Accord mess is one that really get to me. Plenty of third world countries participate in this. Syria and Nicaragua is the other countries who is not participating. Does US want to have the same standard as these two (no offense to anyone from these two countries)? Urgh...

Even North Korea with their crazy leader signed it...

Ahh yes, but we have a President who thinks climate change was invented by the Chinese. So to be fair, a lot of third world countries have smarter leaders.

So... all we really need to do to move the needle is convince Alex Jones that hiding climate change is a conspiracy worth getting behind. That not letting the public know about the dangers of it is, in fact, a liberal conspiracy promoted by Nancy Pelosi. That would probably convince Trump.

Hillary would have sent the Paris Accord to congress and it would have been ratified......then they'd be in it.

The Paris Accord mess is one that really get to me. Plenty of third world countries participate in this. Syria and Nicaragua is the other countries who is not participating. Does US want to have the same standard as these two (no offense to anyone from these two countries)? Urgh...

Even North Korea with their crazy leader signed it...

Ahh yes, but we have a President who thinks climate change was invented by the Chinese. So to be fair, a lot of third world countries have smarter leaders.

So... all we really need to do to move the needle is convince Alex Jones that hiding climate change is a conspiracy worth getting behind. That not letting the public know about the dangers of it is, in fact, a liberal conspiracy promoted by Nancy Pelosi. That would probably convince Trump.

Probably best to have the propagandists at "Fox and Friends" spoon feed the idiot everything, while he is watching and deciding what to parrot, every morning. They could probably find an elementary level discussion of the topic, complete with shiny pictures. A few rounds of, "Climate Change for Children" and Cheeto Mossolini will be a believer.

Hillary would have sent the Paris Accord to congress and it would have been ratified......then they'd be in it.

The Paris Accord mess is one that really get to me. Plenty of third world countries participate in this. Syria and Nicaragua is the other countries who is not participating. Does US want to have the same standard as these two (no offense to anyone from these two countries)? Urgh...

Even North Korea with their crazy leader signed it...

Ahh yes, but we have a President who thinks climate change was invented by the Chinese. So to be fair, a lot of third world countries have smarter leaders.

So... all we really need to do to move the needle is convince Alex Jones that hiding climate change is a conspiracy worth getting behind. That not letting the public know about the dangers of it is, in fact, a liberal conspiracy promoted by Nancy Pelosi. That would probably convince Trump.

Probably best to have the propagandists at "Fox and Friends" spoon feed the idiot everything, while he is watching and deciding what to parrot, every morning. They could probably find an elementary level discussion of the topic, complete with shiny pictures. A few rounds of, "Climate Change for Children" and Cheeto Mossolini will be a believer.

How about Rush? Curious to see if anyone stays behind in Florida thinking Hurricane Irma is simply blown out of proportion by liberal propaganda.

So I was think about this thread. And the last one that was similar. You get a lot of worried/upset people here, saying all the bad things that Trump may do. Yet, even when asked, I have not seen any poster who likes Trump post something (s)he thinks is good that Trump is doing. I see a lot of but Clinton, but no, I like X. I mean, I don't like the fact that he is getting rid of the Dreamers, but to a Trump voter, would that not be a positive? Why are we not hear from you would what you think a Full Trump Presidency looks looks like?

So I was think about this thread. And the last one that was similar. You get a lot of worried/upset people here, saying all the bad things that Trump may do. Yet, even when asked, I have not seen any poster who likes Trump post something (s)he thinks is good that Trump is doing. I see a lot of but Clinton, but no, I like X. I mean, I don't like the fact that he is getting rid of the Dreamers, but to a Trump voter, would that not be a positive? Why are we not hear from you would what you think a Full Trump Presidency looks looks like?

The highlighted quote is why this conversation gets so muddled. DACA was going to die in a few weeks1. What Trump did was basically irrelevant as a result. Scratch that. When Trump reversed DACA, from my understanding he put a temporary 'deferred action from deportation' in place. Therefore, instead of DACA being revoked by a judge and dreamers being deported en masse2, they have some breathing room while congress sorts things out.

So this is why it is soo darn hard to talk about the positive for Trump sometimes. Whether you support him or not. His words are harsh to illegal immigrants. Except when he says he loves dreamers. His actions, in repealing DACA, implies he wants to deport them. Then his actions in putting an extension for deferred action implies he doesn't. He explicitly says congress should pass something like DACA or he'll make an executive order. He says he won't grant amnesty. Nancy Pelosi says she had dinner with Trump and he's on board with congress passing something basically like DACA. Trump denies such a compromise was reached.

This is why it is difficult for pro-Trump people to talk good about Trump. On singular topics the amount of dissonance is incredible. There is only one constant. Hillary Clinton would be systematically worst3 in every single area.

1 The rationale for this is that the executive branch can choose to not enforce a law. The complication was that DACA also gave dreamers work permits. Those who were challenging DACA in court were claiming that the latter clause was outside of the president's (Omaha's) authority and only congress could do that. Because of this, my understanding was that by-and-large it was presupposed that it would die in court.

2 Since they gave the government their information, it is a mundane task to deport them

"We had a great meeting. Tim Scott's been a friend of mine for a long time. I've been a supporter of his — I was one of his earliest supporters. We had a great talk yesterday. I think especially in light of the advent of Antifa, if you look at what's going on there. You have some pretty bad dudes on the other side also, and essentially that's what I said. Now, because of what's happened since then with Antifa — you look at really what's happened since Charlottesville, a lot of people are saying and people have actually written, 'Gee, Trump might have a point.' I said, 'You've got some very bad people on the other side also,' which is true. But we had a great conversation. And he also has legislation, which I actually like very much, the concept of which I support, to get people going into certain areas and building and constructing and putting people to work. I told him yesterday that's a concept I can support very easily."

So I was think about this thread. And the last one that was similar. You get a lot of worried/upset people here, saying all the bad things that Trump may do. Yet, even when asked, I have not seen any poster who likes Trump post something (s)he thinks is good that Trump is doing. I see a lot of but Clinton, but no, I like X. I mean, I don't like the fact that he is getting rid of the Dreamers, but to a Trump voter, would that not be a positive? Why are we not hear from you would what you think a Full Trump Presidency looks looks like?

I think we have few MAGA-folk on this forum. I think I might know like one or two MAGA people in actual real-life, and my friend/social group is pretty right-leaning for suburban Illinois. MMM is a partly environmental movement that's going to turn a bit left.

You might get a fair number of libertarians here, because of the over-representation of finance/IT types. Libertarians that I know that like Trump like Trump because they don't like SJWs/antifa/whatever. They'll change their tune if the GOP ever gets their act together and starts passing stuff they don't like...libertarians tend to be against WHOEVER is in power, though, because whoever in power is almost certainly abusing it (from the libertarian perspective).

Citation needed. From my view, the passing of the ACA was the single greatest boon to FIRE. The election of Hillary Clinton would have put in place a veto pen that helped solidify its place in American life. It would have put in place a supreme court justice not dedicated to intellectual contortions to nullifying the law. The election of Trump is a threat to the existence of the ACA and, therefore, a direct threat to my FIRE. In this measure, Trump is systematically "worst", along with the rest of his dumpster-fire.

Most of the folks on the forum are pretty pro-ACA, being able to do the math that self-insuring after age 50 without guaranteed issue of insurance is a huge downside risk to anyone's stache. I wonder how all of the repeal-and-replace supporters here plan on getting insurance without the ACA after FIRE. Sucking on the public teat and making use of government healthcare through police and teacher retirement programs? Just going to crossfit?

So, again, just to repeat: ACA alone was reason to vote for Clinton, without consideration of light treason, general buffoonery, nepotism (subgenre of suck: Jared Kushner), incompetence, grift, etc.

Care to explain? I am truly curious. I am no fan of Hillary. Imo any US president will not pull out of Paris accord. Also I do not think any US president would call white supremacist "some very fine people".

I am not sure how HC or anyone who was running last year can be worst than this.

Care to explain? I am truly curious. I am no fan of Hillary. Imo any US president will not pull out of Paris accord. Also I do not think any US president would call white supremacist "some very fine people".

I am not sure how HC or anyone who was running last year can be worst than this.

I'm curious as well. I'm also not a huge Hillary fan but I don't know if you say this because you're generally against the democratic platform and the way she has voted in the past or if you believe she is as corrupt as she has been portrayed by certain media outlets.

Remember this - however bad you think Trump is now, try and imagine someone like him who ran as a democrat and was using the same tactics he is today to further the democratic party's goals, all while making a mockery of the presidency, causing other governments to look down on us, and engaging in questionable business practices, nepotism, twitter fights, etc.

The highlighted quote is why this conversation gets so muddled. DACA was going to die in a few weeks1. What Trump did was basically irrelevant as a result. Scratch that. When Trump reversed DACA, from my understanding he put a temporary 'deferred action from deportation' in place. Therefore, instead of DACA being revoked by a judge and dreamers being deported en masse2, they have some breathing room while congress sorts things out.

The art of politics is found in the subtle balancing of cajoling, convincing, leveraging, threatening, and overall selling of a policy objective. This is yet another example of Trump's political incompetence and lack of message discipline causing self-inflicted damage. There was an imminent legal threat to DACA (although from what I've read it was not at all a slam dunk case) that makes his action fairly reasonable. A competent politician with competent staff would have rolled this out in a way that played much, much better for him. It's not just liberals and the media refusing to give him the benefit of the doubt, it's an inability to devise a strategy and stick to it. When a politician lies and backtracks and waffles as much as he does it's not unreasonable to want to wait and see where he ends up at the end of the day.

If he successfully gets Congress to pass the Dream Act (and is willing to take the fire from his base who he promised the opposite) then he will get the rightful praise, from me at least. Somehow I'm skeptical.

Care to explain? I am truly curious. I am no fan of Hillary. Imo any US president will not pull out of Paris accord. Also I do not think any US president would call white supremacist "some very fine people".

I am not sure how HC or anyone who was running last year can be worst than this.

I'm curious as well. I'm also not a huge Hillary fan but I don't know if you say this because you're generally against the democratic platform and the way she has voted in the past or if you believe she is as corrupt as she has been portrayed by certain media outlets.

Remember this - however bad you think Trump is now, try and imagine someone like him who ran as a democrat and was using the same tactics he is today to further the democratic party's goals, all while making a mockery of the presidency, causing other governments to look down on us, and engaging in questionable business practices, nepotism, twitter fights, etc.

I suspect it's not actually about Hillary at all, it's just a feed from Trump's continued need to shore up his fragile ego by comparing himself favourably to her.

Trump after today's attack in London-“The travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific-but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!”

Trump after someone protesting a white supremacist rally is killed-“you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don’t know the facts. And it’s a very, very important process to me and it’s an important statement. So I don’t want to go quickly, and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement.”

I think it's safe to say the first quote here is proposing further bans on people from certain countries and most likely of a certain religion despite the fact that he doesn't yet know who was responsible for the attack in London.

Edit: If it turns out the attacker was from one of the countries he wants to ban, that is irrelevant. Please do not reply to point it out if that is the case.

So I was think about this thread. And the last one that was similar. You get a lot of worried/upset people here, saying all the bad things that Trump may do. Yet, even when asked, I have not seen any poster who likes Trump post something (s)he thinks is good that Trump is doing. I see a lot of but Clinton, but no, I like X. I mean, I don't like the fact that he is getting rid of the Dreamers, but to a Trump voter, would that not be a positive? Why are we not hear from you would what you think a Full Trump Presidency looks looks like?

The highlighted quote is why this conversation gets so muddled. DACA was going to die in a few weeks1. What Trump did was basically irrelevant as a result. Scratch that. When Trump reversed DACA, from my understanding he put a temporary 'deferred action from deportation' in place. Therefore, instead of DACA being revoked by a judge and dreamers being deported en masse2, they have some breathing room while congress sorts things out.

So this is why it is soo darn hard to talk about the positive for Trump sometimes. Whether you support him or not. His words are harsh to illegal immigrants. Except when he says he loves dreamers. His actions, in repealing DACA, implies he wants to deport them. Then his actions in putting an extension for deferred action implies he doesn't. He explicitly says congress should pass something like DACA or he'll make an executive order. He says he won't grant amnesty. Nancy Pelosi says she had dinner with Trump and he's on board with congress passing something basically like DACA. Trump denies such a compromise was reached.

This is why it is difficult for pro-Trump people to talk good about Trump. On singular topics the amount of dissonance is incredible. There is only one constant. Hillary Clinton would be systematically worst3 in every single area.

1 The rationale for this is that the executive branch can choose to not enforce a law. The complication was that DACA also gave dreamers work permits. Those who were challenging DACA in court were claiming that the latter clause was outside of the president's (Omaha's) authority and only congress could do that. Because of this, my understanding was that by-and-large it was presupposed that it would die in court.

2 Since they gave the government their information, it is a mundane task to deport them

3 This is not a typo

DACA was not going to die in a few weeks, if you want to pretend to cite something, actually cite something. There are legal arguements for this being constitutional.

I listen to an expert on immigration law speaking on NPR today. It appears the Trump, until very recently, did not really understand what the DACA act is really all about. Including the fact that it is limited to children who arrived here before 2007. Hardly a shock to learn that this moron has spent years commenting, twittering, babbling, and now ending a program that he never even bothered to actually educate himself on. Having an idiot like this as the accidental leader of the free world is almost too much to process.

From my view, the passing of the ACA was the single greatest boon to FIRE....The election of Trump is a threat to the existence of the ACA and, therefore, a direct threat to my FIRE. ....

Most of the folks on the forum are pretty pro-ACA, being able to do the math that self-insuring after age 50 without guaranteed issue of insurance is a huge downside risk to anyone's stache. I wonder how all of the repeal-and-replace supporters here plan on getting insurance without the ACA after FIRE.

I respectively say this is a particularly poor example. The ethics of it in particular rub me the wrong way. I make 4x what my average peer makes. It's possible I make more than any parent at my daughter's school. Every once in awhile on these forums, people share their approximate incomes. I'm not sure where you fit in but I'm a pauper compared to many people on these forums. Attempting FIRE is a pretty bourgeoisie luxury that we can afford. The government does plenty of things to help us bourgeoisie already. I don't consider another advantage as a benefit. I consider it parasitic.

As per it helping us? I don't know one way or another. Wait a moment well I step away to do some calculations. From a Forbe's articles I got a calculator and used it to figure out how much a young adult male my age making my salary would pay in premiums. After financial help, the Bronze plan is 230$ per month. Multiplying that by 173 gives us 39790$. I'm simulating a young man for ten years choosing to not get insurance if the ACA didn't exist and he didn't have a job that supplied insurance until he was 30. Let's invest that for 20 years at a 6% return after inflation. That's 127K. I'm going to guess that the average cost of insurance for someone 50-65 years without the ACA would be 766/month. (We'd I get this number? I fiddled with the above calculator and assumed if the ACA didn't exist there would be some insurance provider who would insure a 50-year old for 15-years at the rate they'd charge a 60-year old under the ACA.) Times 766/month by 12 months in a year times 15 years to get to medicare age and we come to 137K. Since this is a rough estimation, I'd consider the financial impact (for my American counterpart) a wash.

A lot of assumptions went into the above but considering Trump has not repealed the ACA and has made statements suggesting he'd prefer single payer (a suggestion that if made by a President Hillary Clinton would never occur due to Republican opposition), the premise that FIRE is harder under Trump than Clinton w.r.t. to the ACA is tenuous.

Care to explain? I am truly curious. I am no fan of Hillary. Imo any US president will not pull out of Paris accord. Also I do not think any US president would call white supremacist "some very fine people".

I am not sure how HC or anyone who was running last year can be worst than this.

Trump was, at best, misinformed and at worst a fool pandering to the alt-right & white supremacists. I am of the latter opinion but there is a construction for the former: Trump is an idiot and conflated people who are "pro Keeping Confederate Statues" with the people who organized the Charlottesville Protest.

This is an area I can say that Trump is better at than Hillary. I make the more generalized postulation below in response to Dabnasty. In the world a year ago, large subsections of the conservative movement denounced the alt-right. The #NeverTrump movement and Ben Shapiro being major detractors of it. Later, particularly around the time Robert Spencer did a Nazi salute while shouting "Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory" in November, many others joined in renouncing the alt-right. We saw the Alt-Lite/New-Life form (basically the Alt-Right but with an explicitly rejection of White Nationalism), people like the founder of Vice media Gavin McInnes, his Proud Boys and Rebel Media consciously make choices to not associate or intermix with any event related to the Alt-Right.

Now, in this world, because Donald Trump panders to the alt-right, no one likes them. It is well-understood that the only way someone can agree with the alt-right is if they are racist or ignorant of what the alt-right is. Also, people are starting to notice the violent sects in Antifa. Part of this I credit to Trump. When he threatens Berkeley's funding for letting Antifa have a heckler's veto. When he mentions correctly that some of the counter-protesters in Charlottesville were violent. It raises visibility on the issue.

Now, let's imagine an alternate world, one where Clinton had won. I'd posit that both the Alt-Right and violent groups on the left like BAHM and Antifa wouldn't be facing the scrutiny they are now under. Let's start right. Perhaps Robert Spencer and white nationalists wouldn't have been so brazen in their hatred; ergo less people would have disassociated from them. Let's go left. We know due to recent evidence that the Obaha Administration (not Barrack in particular) was already turning a blind eye to the "alt-left". I'd doubt a President Clinton would have threatened Berkley or condemned their violence (an interview got released a few hours ago with Clinton. Some headlines implies she rejects the notion that antifa is violent but I haven't read the transcript or watched the interview.)

I'm curious as well. I'm also not a huge Hillary fan but I don't know if you say this because you're generally against the democratic platform and the way she has voted in the past or if you believe she is as corrupt as she has been portrayed by certain media outlets.

Trump is a polarizing figure. Even Republicans won't support him. The attempted repeal of the ACA or the heat he got from them is over DACA is an example of this. History and subjective evaluation may prove me wrong but I think he won't really anything that is irreversibly destructive due to this trait. In other words, he's impotent.

Anything extreme Trump wants to do will be mutually blocked by Republicans and Democrats. After many things that happened with President Obaha (ex. conflicts, wall street bailouts, etc...), I don't trust Democrats to feign opposition to a Democratic president. The Republicans have proven their low-quality metal: they're willing to abandon their supposed principals, their base, and Trump to save themselves.

To restate this: if one has to choose between a horrible president that has their hands tied by both parties and a horrible president who will have half of congress on their side, the man with small hands is the better choice in every single measure in my opinion.

(The only route DACA had to survive would be if Texas and the other states didn't sue or if Jeff Sessions decided to defend DACA vigorously all the way to the Supreme Court where Gorsuch accidentally delivers the deciding vote in favour of DACA)

Care to explain? I am truly curious. I am no fan of Hillary. Imo any US president will not pull out of Paris accord. Also I do not think any US president would call white supremacist "some very fine people".

I am not sure how HC or anyone who was running last year can be worst than this.

I'm curious as well. I'm also not a huge Hillary fan but I don't know if you say this because you're generally against the democratic platform and the way she has voted in the past or if you believe she is as corrupt as she has been portrayed by certain media outlets.

Remember this - however bad you think Trump is now, try and imagine someone like him who ran as a democrat and was using the same tactics he is today to further the democratic party's goals, all while making a mockery of the presidency, causing other governments to look down on us, and engaging in questionable business practices, nepotism, twitter fights, etc.

If I, use a personal email server out of my home to do business for the company that I work for, I would be fired on the spot. Chances are, I will not be able to get another job that is comparable (or very difficult to get another job) once my potential/future boss finds out what I did. Can you imagine going to an interview and being questioned about this? There is no justification for having email server at home - saying I dunno, I am dumb, etc is not an excuse. So imo HC should be disqualified to even run as President. That is why I am not a fan. Got nothing to do so and so being a Republican or Democrat.

(The only route DACA had to survive would be if Texas and the other states didn't sue or if Jeff Sessions decided to defend DACA vigorously all the way to the Supreme Court where Gorsuch accidentally delivers the deciding vote in favour of DACA)

A state suing does not mean they will win and there is no way that they would have a verdict in a couple of weeks. So, your example does not prove what you think it does.

(The only route DACA had to survive would be if Texas and the other states didn't sue or if Jeff Sessions decided to defend DACA vigorously all the way to the Supreme Court where Gorsuch accidentally delivers the deciding vote in favour of DACA)

A state suing does not mean they will win and there is no way that they would have a verdict in a couple of weeks. So, your example does not prove what you think it does.

Do you think the Trump administration, Jeff Sessions in particular, would defend DACA? When Texas sued over DAPA, they got a ruling in a matter of weeks. Is there some type of backlog in the lower courts that would impede them getting a courtroom any time soon?

I have to reiterate my previous statement. Unless you think Texas and other states were bluffing or that the Trump Administration would have defended DACA in court, there is no way DACA was going to live.

I listen to an expert on immigration law speaking on NPR today. It appears the Trump, until very recently, did not really understand what the DACA act is really all about. Including the fact that it is limited to children who arrived here before 2007. Hardly a shock to learn that this moron has spent years commenting, twittering, babbling, and now ending a program that he never even bothered to actually educate himself on. Having an idiot like this as the accidental leader of the free world is almost too much to process.

Pretty much this. 45 babbles and pontificates about immigration/the environment/the economy/international relations/race issues and many, many topics he doesn't have the first clue about. Instead of actually digging in and reading about something, being briefed by actual experts, he just emotionally reacts. His base loves it and applauds his ignorance (it reinforces their own ignorance) but it's pretty frightening to the rest of the population.

(The only route DACA had to survive would be if Texas and the other states didn't sue or if Jeff Sessions decided to defend DACA vigorously all the way to the Supreme Court where Gorsuch accidentally delivers the deciding vote in favour of DACA)

A state suing does not mean they will win and there is no way that they would have a verdict in a couple of weeks. So, your example does not prove what you think it does.

Do you think the Trump administration, Jeff Sessions in particular, would defend DACA? When Texas sued over DAPA, they got a ruling in a matter of weeks. Is there some type of backlog in the lower courts that would impede them getting a courtroom any time soon?

I have to reiterate my previous statement. Unless you think Texas and other states were bluffing or that the Trump Administration would have defended DACA in court, there is no way DACA was going to live.

DACA and DAPA were not going to live after Trump was elected President. The justices were already split 4-4 and Neil Gorsuch would probably vote against the program.

Now, in this world, because Donald Trump panders to the alt-right, no one likes them. It is well-understood that the only way someone can agree with the alt-right is if they are racist or ignorant of what the alt-right is. Also, people are starting to notice the violent sects in Antifa. Part of this I credit to Trump. When he threatens Berkeley's funding for letting Antifa have a heckler's veto. When he mentions correctly that some of the counter-protesters in Charlottesville were violent. It raises visibility on the issue.

Now, let's imagine an alternate world, one where Clinton had won. I'd posit that both the Alt-Right and violent groups on the left like BAHM and Antifa wouldn't be facing the scrutiny they are now under. Let's start right. Perhaps Robert Spencer and white nationalists wouldn't have been so brazen in their hatred; ergo less people would have disassociated from them. Let's go left. We know due to recent evidence that the Obaha Administration (not Barrack in particular) was already turning a blind eye to the "alt-left". I'd doubt a President Clinton would have threatened Berkley or condemned their violence (an interview got released a few hours ago with Clinton. Some headlines implies she rejects the notion that antifa is violent but I haven't read the transcript or watched the interview.)

What did I just read? Did Trump-justifying mental contortions just rip a hole in the space-time continuum and now someone is actually arguing that it's a GOOD thing that the president, with the power and responsibility of the office, panders to white supremacists because it draws negative attention to them?

I'd rather the president not be a white supremacist panderer. Full stop. And, by the way, even the hand-waving raising awareness argument is BS. Though there's more attention on the issue, the end result of that attention is that hate crimes against minorities are sharply up.